Objectives: The use of interactive public engagement methods to elicit public values is becoming routine practice in health system planning, policy and evaluation; however, little systematic attention has been given to the analysis of how these values are articulated. This process will be examined with the use of deliberative discourse methods in the context of health technologies. Approach: The deliberations of a 14-person Citizens’ Reference Panel on Health Technologies were audiotaped and transcribed. The panel provided input to the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee in developing its recommendations. Discussion transcripts were analyzed using Gee’s (2005) ‘building tasks’ framework with a focus on identities, relationships, and politics. In depth language-context analysis was then used to study ‘situated meanings’ of social and ethical citizen values. Both levels of discourse analysis were then used to elicit the meso-level dynamics within the citizen panel deliberations. Results: Panel members used the provided materials, personal experience and other sources of information to express their values toward the technologies under review. In the group, members used their occupational, personal and cultural identities and adopted in-group citizen panel roles that involved summarizing small group discussions, challenging other members, providing information, providing expertise, interpreting information and facilitating. These individual roles were similar across meetings and members began to form relationships with their fellow citizens and make connections between the values involved in similar technologies. Conclusion: Discourse analysis methods can be used to draw in-depth insights from public engagement deliberations which contribute important new knowledge to the field of public deliberation and health policy. Further use and refinement of deliberative discourse methods will allow public values to be better understood and more adequately portrayed in the health technology assessment process. / Master of Science (MSc)

In the light of the twofold mission of Swedish schools, that is to say enabling pupils to develop both subject knowledge and a democratic attitude, the purpose of this thesis is to investigate to what extent adult higher education students from different language and social backgrounds, studying Swedish as a second language, are able to carry out joint writing assignments with the aid of deliberative discourse, and to what extent they thereby also develop a deliberative attitude. The twofold mission of education applies to them too. While there already exists a certain amount of research into deliberative discourse relating to education in schools, the perspective of higher education didactics in this research is still lacking. The present study is to be viewed as a first contribution to this research. The theoretical starting point of this study includes previous research into deliberative discourse by further developing an existing model regarding criteria for deliberative discourse, for example that there is a striving towards agreement, although the consensus may be temporary, that diverging opinions can be set against each other, that tolerance and respect for views other than one’s own are shown, and that traditional outlooks can be questioned. This model is supplemented by designations for a number of disruptive behaviours, such as ridiculing, ignoring, interrupting people and engaging in private conversations. The thus further developed model will thereafter act as a lens in the analysis of students’ discussions when writing joint texts. Another theoretical starting point is the view of education as communication, and of the possibility of communication creating a third place, thereby developing democracy in the here and now-situation. For this study, comprising 18 hours of observation of nine students, that is to say the discussions of three groups in connection with writing texts on different occasions, various ethnographic data collection methods have been employed, for example video recordings, participant observations, field notes and interviews in conjunction with the discussions. The analysis clarifies that the three groups developed their deliberation as the discussions about the joint assignment proceeded, and that most of the nine students furthermore expressed at least an openness towards a deliberative attitude for further discussions in the future. The disruptive behaviours mentioned in connection with the analytical model that could be identified in the discussions, for example interruptions and private conversations, proved not to constitute real disturbances; on the contrary they actually contributed towards the discussions developing, enabling them to continue. On the other hand, other and not previously identified disturbances occurred, for example a focus on grades, the lack of time and lacking language ability, which all in different ways affected the students’ attitudes towards their work. For any future didactical work on deliberative discourse in Swedish as a second language within higher education, these disturbances would need to be highlighted and made aware of for both teachers and students. Keywords: higher education didactics, communication, deliberative discourse, deliberative attitude, John Dewey, Tomas Englund, heterogeneity, ethnographic data collection methods. / Mot bakgrund av den svenska skolans dubbla uppdrag, det vill säga att möjliggöra för elever att utveckla både ämneskunskaper och ett demokratiskt förhållningssätt, är syftet med denna avhandling att undersöka i vad mån vuxna högskolestudenter med olika språklig och kulturell bakgrund under sin utbildning i svenska som andraspråk förmår lösa gemensamma skrivuppgifter med hjälp av deliberativa samtal, och i vad mån de därigenom också utvecklar ett deliberativt förhållningssätt. Utbildningens dubbla uppdrag är giltigt också för dem. Samtidigt som det redan finns viss forskning om deliberativa samtal när det gäller undervisning i skolan, saknas fortfarande ett högskoledidaktiskt perspektiv i denna forskning. Föreliggande studie ska ses som ett första högskoledidaktiskt bidrag till denna forskning. Studien tar sin teoretiska utgångspunkt bland annat i tidigare forskning om deliberativa samtal genom att vidareutveckla en befintlig modell när det gäller kriterier för deliberativa samtal, till exempel att det föreligger en strävan efter att komma överens, även om konsensus är temporär, att skilda uppfattningar kan ställas mot varandra, att tolerans och respekt för andra åsikter än de egna kommer till uttryck, och att traditionella synsätt kan ifrågasättas. Studien omfattar 18 timmars observationer av nio studenters, det vill säga tre gruppers samtal i samband med gemensam textskrivning vid olika tillfällen. Olika etnografiska datainsamlingsmetoder har använts, till exempel videoinspelningar, deltagande observationer, fältanteckningar och intervjuer i anslutning till samtalen. Av analysen framgår att de tre grupperna utvecklade sin deliberation allteftersom samtalen kring den gemensamma uppgiften pågick, och att de flesta av de nio studenterna dessutom gav uttryck för en deliberativ beredskap inför fortsatta samtal. Studenternas fokus på sina betyg påverkade emellertid i viss utsträckning deras deliberation och kan betecknas som störningar i samtalen. Inför ett eventuellt framtida didaktiskt arbete med deliberativa samtal inom svenska som andraspråk på högskolan skulle dessa störningar behöva lyftas fram och medvetandegöras både för lärare och studenter.

In the light of the twofold mission of Swedish schools, that is to say enabling pupils to develop both subject knowledge and a democratic attitude, the purpose of this thesis is to investigate to what extent adult higher education students from different language and social backgrounds, studying Swedish as a second language, are able to carry out joint writing assignments with the aid of deliberative discourse, and to what extent they thereby also develop a deliberative attitude. The twofold mission of education applies to them too. While there already exists a certain amount of research into deliberative discourse relating to education in schools, the perspective of higher education didactics in this research is still lacking. The present study is to be viewed as a first contribution to this research. The theoretical starting point of this study includes previous research into deliberative discourse by further developing an existing model regarding criteria for deliberative discourse, for example that there is a striving towards agreement, although the consensus may be temporary, that diverging opinions can be set against each other, that tolerance and respect for views other than one’s own are shown, and that traditional outlooks can be questioned. This model is supplemented by designations for a number of disruptive behaviours, such as ridiculing, ignoring, interrupting people and engaging in private conversations. The thus further developed model will thereafter act as a lens in the analysis of students’ discussions when writing joint texts. Another theoretical starting point is the view of education as communication, and of the possibility of communication creating a third place, thereby developing democracy in the here and now-situation. For this study, comprising 18 hours of observation of nine students, that is to say the discussions of three groups in connection with writing texts on different occasions, various ethnographic data collection methods have been employed, for example video recordings, participant observations, field notes and interviews in conjunction with the discussions. The analysis clarifies that the three groups developed their deliberation as the discussions about the joint assignment proceeded, and that most of the nine students furthermore expressed at least an openness towards a deliberative attitude for further discussions in the future. The disruptive behaviours mentioned in connection with the analytical model that could be identified in the discussions, for example interruptions and private conversations, proved not to constitute real disturbances; on the contrary they actually contributed towards the discussions developing, enabling them to continue. On the other hand, other and not previously identified disturbances occurred, for example a focus on grades, the lack of time and lacking language ability, which all in different ways affected the students’ attitudes towards their work. For any future didactical work on deliberative discourse in Swedish as a second language within higher education, these disturbances would need to be highlighted and made aware of for both teachers and students. Keywords: higher education didactics, communication, deliberative discourse, deliberative attitude, John Dewey, Tomas Englund, heterogeneity, ethnographic data collection methods. / Mot bakgrund av den svenska skolans dubbla uppdrag, det vill säga att möjliggöra för elever att utveckla både ämneskunskaper och ett demokratiskt förhållningssätt, är syftet med denna avhandling att undersöka i vad mån vuxna högskolestudenter med olika språklig och kulturell bakgrund under sin utbildning i svenska som andraspråk förmår lösa gemensamma skrivuppgifter med hjälp av deliberativa samtal, och i vad mån de därigenom också utvecklar ett deliberativt förhållningssätt. Utbildningens dubbla uppdrag är giltigt också för dem. Samtidigt som det redan finns viss forskning om deliberativa samtal när det gäller undervisning i skolan, saknas fortfarande ett högskoledidaktiskt perspektiv i denna forskning. Föreliggande studie ska ses som ett första högskoledidaktiskt bidrag till denna forskning. Studien tar sin teoretiska utgångspunkt bland annat i tidigare forskning om deliberativa samtal genom att vidareutveckla en befintlig modell när det gäller kriterier för deliberativa samtal, till exempel att det föreligger en strävan efter att komma överens, även om konsensus är temporär, att skilda uppfattningar kan ställas mot varandra, att tolerans och respekt för andra åsikter än de egna kommer till uttryck, och att traditionella synsätt kan ifrågasättas. Studien omfattar 18 timmars observationer av nio studenters, det vill säga tre gruppers samtal i samband med gemensam textskrivning vid olika tillfällen. Olika etnografiska datainsamlingsmetoder har använts, till exempel videoinspelningar, deltagande observationer, fältanteckningar och intervjuer i anslutning till samtalen. Av analysen framgår att de tre grupperna utvecklade sin deliberation allteftersom samtalen kring den gemensamma uppgiften pågick, och att de flesta av de nio studenterna dessutom gav uttryck för en deliberativ beredskap inför fortsatta samtal. Studenternas fokus på sina betyg påverkade emellertid i viss utsträckning deras deliberation och kan betecknas som störningar i samtalen. Inför ett eventuellt framtida didaktiskt arbete med deliberativa samtal inom svenska som andraspråk på högskolan skulle dessa störningar behöva lyftas fram och medvetandegöras både för lärare och studenter.